A Legal Analysis Of The Contemporary Iran Conflict Under International Law -By Ibraheem Iyanuoluwa Jelili

Abstract

The contemporary Iran conflict, involving military engagements between Iran, the United States, Israel, and allied states, raises fundamental questions under international law. This article examines the legality of the conflict through the dual lenses of jus ad bellum (law governing the use of force) and jus in bello (international humanitarian law). It interrogates whether the initiation of hostilities complies with the United Nations Charter, particularly the prohibition of the use of force and the doctrine of self-defence. Furthermore, it evaluates conduct during hostilities, including allegations of attacks on civilian infrastructure and the use of indiscriminate weapons. The study finds that significant aspects of the conflict raise serious legal concerns, including potential violations of the prohibition of aggression, principles of necessity and proportionality, and rules protecting civilians. The article concludes by emphasizing the urgent need for adherence to international legal norms to preserve global peace and security.

Introduction

The contemporary Iran conflict represents one of the most significant geopolitical crises in recent international relations, involving a complex interplay of state and regional actors. Since early 2026, escalating military confrontations between Iran and a coalition involving the United States and Israel have expanded into a broader regional conflict, affecting strategic locations such as the Strait of Hormuz and drawing in multiple Gulf states.

This conflict has not only intensified political tensions but has also triggered widespread legal debates regarding its conformity with established principles of international law. Central to these debates is the legality of the use of force under the United Nations Charter, which serves as the cornerstone of the modern international legal order. Article 2(4) of the Charter expressly prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, subject only to limited exceptions such as self-defence and Security Council authorization.

The initial military strikes carried out against Iran by external actors have been widely criticized by legal scholars and international bodies as potentially lacking lawful justification. In particular, the absence of United Nations Security Council authorization and doubts surrounding the existence of an “armed attack” necessary to trigger self-defence have led to arguments that such actions may constitute unlawful uses of force.

In response, Iran has engaged in retaliatory measures, including missile and drone strikes against military installations and strategic infrastructure. These actions have further complicated the legal landscape, raising questions as to whether they fall within the permissible scope of self-defence or constitute disproportionate or unlawful reprisals.

Beyond the legality of resorting to force, the conduct of hostilities has also come under scrutiny. Reports of attacks on civilian infrastructure, including educational facilities and energy installations, as well as the use of potentially indiscriminate weapons, suggest possible violations of international humanitarian law.

Against this backdrop, this article seeks to provide a comprehensive legal analysis of the contemporary Iran conflict under international law. It examines the legality of the initial use of force, evaluates the justification of self-defence claims, and assesses compliance with international humanitarian law in the conduct of hostilities. Through this analysis, the article aims to contribute to ongoing scholarly discourse and underscore the importance of maintaining the integrity of the international legal order in times of conflict.

The Legal Framework Governing the Use of Force (Jus ad Bellum)

The prohibition of the use of force is a peremptory norm (jus cogens) in international law. Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter establishes a general ban on the use of force, with only two recognized exceptions: authorization by the United Nations Security Council and the inherent right of self-defence under Article 51.

In the present conflict, there is no evidence of Security Council authorization for the use of force against Iran. Consequently, the legality of the military actions hinges on whether they can be justified as acts of self-defence.

For self-defence to be lawful, three key conditions must be satisfied:

• Existence of an armed attack

• Necessity of the response

• Proportionality of the force used

Available reports suggest that the initial strikes against Iran may not meet these criteria, particularly in the absence of clear evidence of an imminent armed attack attributable to Iran.

Furthermore, the doctrine of anticipatory self-defence remains controversial in international law, and its application in this context is highly disputed. As such, the initial use of force against Iran arguably raises serious concerns of illegality under international law.

Iran’s Right of Self-Defence and Countermeasures

Iran has justified its retaliatory actions as exercises of its inherent right of self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Given that Iran was subjected to military strikes, it may legitimately invoke self-defence, provided its response complies with the principles of necessity and proportionality.

However, the scope of permissible self-defence is not unlimited. Actions such as targeting distant military bases or threatening international shipping routes may raise questions as to whether such responses are proportionate to the initial attack. The disruption of maritime navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, for instance, has significant global implications and may exceed what is considered lawful defensive action.

Thus, while Iran possesses a prima facie right to self-defence, the legality of its actions must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Conduct of Hostilities (Jus in Bello)

International humanitarian law (IHL), particularly the Geneva Conventions, governs the conduct of hostilities irrespective of the legality of the conflict itself. Core principles include:

• Distinction (between civilians and combatants)

• Proportionality

• Military necessity

Reports of attacks on civilian objects, including schools, raise serious concerns under IHL. Such acts, if proven, constitute grave breaches of the law and may amount to war crimes.

Additionally, the use of indiscriminate weapons, such as cluster munitions in populated areas, violates customary international humanitarian law due to their inability to distinguish between civilian and military targets.

Recent developments also highlight risks associated with attacks on critical infrastructure. Targeting facilities such as power plants may contravene legal protections afforded to civilian objects and could result in severe humanitarian consequences.

These developments underscore the importance of strict compliance with IHL by all parties to the conflict.

Implications for International Law and Global Order

The Iran conflict reflects a broader challenge to the international legal order, particularly the erosion of the prohibition on the use of force. Repeated unilateral military actions without clear legal justification risk undermining the authority of the United Nations and weakening compliance with international norms.

Moreover, the expansion of the conflict into a regional crisis involving multiple states increases the likelihood of widespread violations of international law and poses a significant threat to international peace and security. The situation also highlights the limitations of existing enforcement mechanisms within international law, particularly the inability of the Security Council to act decisively in politically sensitive conflicts.

Conclusion

The contemporary Iran conflict presents a complex and evolving legal landscape under international law. The initial use of force against Iran raises serious concerns regarding compliance with the UN Charter, particularly in relation to the prohibition of aggression and the requirements of self-defence.

While Iran may invoke the right of self-defence, its actions must remain within the bounds of necessity and proportionality. At the same time, both parties are bound by international humanitarian law in the conduct of hostilities, and violations such as attacks on civilians and the use of indiscriminate weapons cannot be justified under any circumstances.

Ultimately, the conflict underscores the urgent need for renewed commitment to international legal norms and the peaceful resolution of disputes. Without such commitment, the integrity of the international legal system; and the stability it seeks to preserve remains at significant risk.

I am Ibraheem Iyanuoluwa Jelili, a 500-level Law student at Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, and a member of the International Law Association, Nigeria Chapter. I hold a Diploma in Law with Distinction from the same prestigious institution.

My areas of interest include Oil and Gas Law, International Law, Intellectual Property Law, as well as Research, Article writing, Leadership, and Advocacy.

I may be contacted via the following channels:

Email: ibraheemiyanuoluwa913@gmail.com

WhatsApp: 09023185916